AJAY GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts for the disposal of this case are that the petitioner presently working as Junior Engineer in the MES (Military Engineering Service), responded to a notification No.06 -PSC of 2005 dt. 31st of May05, issued by the respondent Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) inviting applications from the permanent residents of J&K State for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The qualification prescribed for the said post was Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering or AMIE (Sec.A&B), India, in the appropriate branch of engineering. So far as the age criteria is concerned, this was prescribed as minimum 18 years and maximum 35 years on the cut off date i.e. 1st of Jan05. The maximum age so far as Physically handicapped category is concerned was fixed at 37 years and 38 years for SC/ST category, those already in Government service and belonging to Ex -servicemen category.

(2.) THE petitioner had applied for the post in question as a candidate already in Government service. His application was routed through proper channel by the MES department. The further fact is that respondent Commission in supercession to aforesaid notification issued another notification bearing No.12 -PSC of 2005 dt. 20th of Sept05, inviting applications on prescribed proforma for various posts under the State including the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The candidates who had applied in pursuance to the earlier notification had to apply afresh. The age criteria was re -fixed. So far as the category of 'in service i.e. candidates already in Government service is concerned, the maximum age prescribed as on Ist of Jan05 was increased from 38 to 40 years. Petitioner being eligible responded to the second notification also. He was issued an admit card and put to a screening test along with other eligible candidates. The result of the screening test conducted by the respondent Commission was declared vide notification No.PSC/EXAM -06/41 dt. 2nd of Aug06 (Annexure G).

(3.) THE grievance projected by the petitioner is that even though, he stood third in the merit list prepared by the Commission after the result of the screening test was declared, he was not interviewed by the Commission on the ground that the application of the petitioner stands rejected due to the reason that he is over -aged. It is stated that petitioners age on the cut off date was 37 years, 2 months and 27 days i.e. well within the prescribed age limit of 40 years but the respondent Commission treating the candidature of the petitioner in open category denied him the benefit of upper age limit as fixed for the candidates who had applied under the category of already in Government service. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted his application through proper channel and had not suppressed any fact. It is stated that while filling up the application form, the petitioner had clearly shown that he is not a State Government employee. It is stated that in the advertisement notice, it was nowhere mentioned that only State Government employees are eligible to apply under the category of "Candidates already in Government Service". It is stated that in the advertisement notice word "Government Service" has been mentioned which would include both Central as well as State Government and the petitioner whose services are under the Central Government cannot be denied the benefit of consideration on the ground that he is not a State Government employee. It is thus stated that the action of respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner by non accepting his application form under the category of "Candidates already in Government Service" is not in accordance with the law.